About your Search

20130401
20130430
STATION
SFGTV 352
SFGTV2 61
CURRENT 12
CSPAN 9
CNNW 7
COM 5
CSPAN2 5
MSNBCW 5
KNTV (NBC) 4
CNBC 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
KTVU (FOX) 2
FBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 480
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 480 (some duplicates have been removed)
's going on. there is disagreement about that. supervisor wiener's legislation will create an open predictable process to resolve these disputes. it will make it easy for everyday people, not just attorneys to understand the deadlines. it will make the ceqa process open and more clear for the little guys in san francisco, the homeowners who want to make small, important to the home owner improvements to their home. we therefore support supervisor wiener's legislation. by contrast, we're concerned that supervisor kim's legislation might have a negative impact on our members because nearly all the homes in golden gate heights are more than 50 years old. according to supervisor kim's proposal as i understand t the over the counter permits that our members currently can get for minor projects, for example, you know, replacing a broken handrail, windows, leaky roof, that sort of things, would no longer be allowed. this would add months of delay to a home remodel project upwards of $500,000 or more to obtain a categorical exemption certificate they would need to continue with what is ess
here is [speaker not understood] amendments, supervisor wiener's legislation has been a moving target and many people cannot keep up with it. jane kim is introducing legislation tomorrow. people by right would like to see both side by side compared and would like to look at this and [speaker not understood] the best part for both pieces of legislation could be combined . i think that would be a fair thing for the public to look at as this has been a difficult process and a quick process, and as howard wong said earlier, ~ people don't get it. i'm going to bring up what i think was extremely unfair categorical exemption. it's, the soccer field in golden gate park were listed under different lot numbers and they were supposed to be supposedly nothing more than another grass hill. turned out it was going to be a thousand-seat stadium with lighting. this was all found out by nancy warfol. so, i appreciate what she has done and you can see that this process can be abused. i think when i talk to citizens, they're very worried that a project after it has gone through the ceqa process
as looking at the legislation that supervisor wiener has brought forward. we do have, you know, concerns, as everybody knows, we along with coalition members who have spoken and will speak today have been involved in an eight year fight around the cpmc development. and actually, many of the delays that happened in that development had nothing to do with ceqa or our coalition putting up roadblocks or anything like that. it had to do with the developer in kind of a start stop, start stop delay mode doing whatever they were doing, did not move forward the project. and that's one of the reasons that that project really took so long. so, you know, through that process, i think clearly everyone at the board agrees that we've ended up in a much better place than we were a few months ago and years ago and through that process we had an ability to appeal to the board and to bring forward the concerns that we had around the project that is going to impact health care in this city for decades. and we think that it's really important that we had a chance to raise those concerns at the full board and
association [speaker not understood], which strongly supports supervisor wiener's ceqa legislation. our neighborhood association is 100 years old and we thought we saw it all. we think that this is a very important open government measure that promotes transparency. it's unjust to keep the planning process hidden from the general public and accessible only to the experts. who under the confusing rules. you're going to hear from the usual suspects here, i trust, and maybe their attorneys. i heard one activist saying i had a long talk with aaron last night. so, you will hear that. but let's think about everybody else here who doesn't have time to come to all the hearings who doesn't fully understand ceqa. supervisor chiu asked about what specifics, what's important. what's important to us is clear notice, clear notification so we all know what's happening and when we can register our thoughts. we want one appeal, not two or three or four appeals. people who are working people who have families don't have time to come to multiple hearings. do it. and then finally, we think it's only f
in regards to this process. as we all know this process didn't start with supervisor wiener. it has going on for 7 or 8 years. at this point seems like a long marathon of 8 years and now it seems like people want to do the sprint to the finish line. enough time has been spent but we have to be diligent. we need to explore all avenues and autopsy optioned and unfortunately, if we sprint to the end we'll not have the opportunity to see supervisors kim legislation and supervisor wiener's legislation side by side. we need adequate time. we need at least until the end of may for the process to be completed. so, please do not short circuit this process. one of the things that are important that was mentioned earlier is the powers of the e r o. it maybe truthful but we need clear guidelines and we need an appeal process. so thank you supervisor kim for having that. this is not a sprint we need the time we need to have optioned. thank you >> thank you. >> supervisors we're on record as supporting supervisors wiener's current legislation. this process i guess testament to the degree of importanc
those two pieces of legislation together and not act today on supervisor wiener's legislation alone. but i wanted to talk about something else, and that is it looks to me like -- and it came up as prozac. it looks to me like small, small examples of appeals have been made in the mountains. for example -- and i think even you, scott wiener, mentioned this early on in the process -- the lafayette park appeal. first of all, it has made a very big deal, prozac and the press. lafayette park wasn't a ceqa appeal, it was a board of permits a people. secondly, by the rec and park management admission themselves, there were five permits, only one of which was appealed. the project went forward. 85% of the project just proceeded. that one permit was the only permit, it didn't stop the project accountv the project is virtually finished. but somehow it was made into a mountain. i think the same kind of thing is happening with this dolores park thing that conveniently came up this week. ~ i don't know who that person s but maybe they're more interested in kids than dogs. but let me get to the po
mar? mar present. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee? yee present. mr. president, all members are present. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, before we do the pledge of allegiance, i'd like to ask that we take a moment to recognize the victims of yesterday's boston marathon tragedy. [moment of silence] >> thank you very much. and ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> colleagues, we have our march 12, 2013 board meeting minutes. could i have a motion to approve those minutes? motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor breed. without objection, those meeting minutes are adopted. [gavel] >> madam clerk, do we have any communications? >> there are no communications, mr. president. >> and if you could read our consent agenda. >> items 1 through 14 are considered routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and
, we ask that the land use committee to delay the supervisor wiener's amendments and instead work closely with community members and give us serious consideration to supervisor kim's legislation which will be put forward in a few days. thank you. >> next speaker. >>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is hiroshi fakuda. i am somewhat disappointed with you, supervisor wiener. [speaker not understood]. i want to thank you for meeting with us on some occasions. however, this scheduling of this meeting is very unfortunate because we have [speaker not understood] legislation coming through and you're trying to cut that off at the pass. that cuts off public debate. very unfortunate. now, ceqa is very important and here we're trying to cut off public debates on several options, deplorable. now, planning department has been doing a very extraordinary job in processing permits. director ram's department is doing such a good job that is going forward beyond the capabilities of the city to maintain itself. muni, on the other hand, is deplorable. now, the thing is this is a city for all peo
to address needed change in ceqa. there is supervisor wiener's and there is the emerging supervisor kim's which has not yet been fully discussed. it only seems to me if we're going to talk about good government, we should have those two alternatives side by side so that we can compare and contrast and make some decisions, informed decisions about what the best way to proceed is. so, i would appeal to you to continue this for at least the time that it takes for supervisor kim's to get out there and for the public to review both pieces of legislation. thanks. >> mr. casey, my understanding today, you're here for the hotel workers? >>> yes, i'm speaking for hotel workers local 2. >> okay, thank you. >>> the labor council has not taken a position. >> that was my understanding. thank you. ms. scott. >>> good afternoon, supervisors. back again. listen, i'm urging you to really pass thises as it currently is. ~ i spent a good bit of this weekend thinking about it. i think sometimes we tend to beat thing to death. i think this one has been beat to death quite enough. i don't see why we can't ha
civic and labor unions. we urge approval of supervisor wiener's legislation today. it's outrageous, really, that for more than a decade san francisco has not had a codified process so that everybody can understand what the appeal process is on cat ex and negative declarations. that's a real function of government to make sure that the issuance of permits, the issuance of contracts, appeal process are known and codified. so, we urge you to move forward with this today. there is no shortage of appeal opportunities in san francisco. when that second or third permit has to be pulled on a project, the board of appeals is there and has been there for decades before ceqa was ever on the books. so, these -- the issues before you today are meeting an obligation long overdue to create a transparent process so that everybody knows how they file an appeal, the timelines, and the numbers of people that have failed to meet those. nobody here today has talked about every year there must be dozens of people who have tripped up for the lack of a transparent process. so, we urge you to approve the a
that supervisor wiener has put forth. i've had many meetings with persons in the community who have not been in agreement with supervisor wiener. i want to talk about categories of issues that can help narrow issues. what i have brought today is 9 amendments to supervisor wiener's legislation. i have copies if you want, you can get a copy but i think they address the line share. what i have heard thus far are issues about supervisor wiener's legislation. first there is some how supervisor wiener's would delegate certain amounts of people could be involved but i want to clarify that the board can abusive the project only after the sequa have been recommendation for the purpose of relating an appeal before the full board. the set set of minutes deal with supervisor campos said which is by and large the eir process has been working just fine and certainly in the context of the cpc a number of sub amendments that really minimize the requirement that the written materials be submitted with the agency to not to file the - that an eir can be filed after certification to allow appeals to be filed bu
consideration. under supervisor wiener's legislation, the exemption determination would identify the approval action, in this case the parks and recreation commission on the project and that would be posted online. the appeal could be filed after issuance of the exemption same with supervisor kim's and would not be scheduled after the action by the parks and recreation and the appeal window would end 30 days after the parks and recreation commission action. >> if there was no parks and recreation action, because i don't think the commission approves everything. >> under supervisor wiener's legislation that department would need to notify us and we would post notice of that approval on our website and indication of when the allowable period would be. it would be a 30 day appeal period that would not have started until we posted that on our website and i believe supervisor kim's legislation is around the issue of legislation and not discussion about the approval action. >> so it wouldn't be analogues where pulling the permit to start the construction in either case? >> the appeal window would o
afternoon. edward mottser, [speaker not understood]. we urge continuation of the vote on the wiener amendment here today. i would like focus my discussion specifically on 31.16, the automatic appeal and how this section introduces additional levels of confusion and uncertainty for the public and how it harm the environmental dialogue before the final project approval. so, the wiener amendment contemplates two pass for appeal. it [speaker not understood]. it is important because it requires a different action by the public depending on what -- whether the board of supervisors is the ceqa decision making body or not. the question is when would the board of supervisors become the ceqa decision making body. we argue it is uncertain ask confusing. for example, section 32.16 b2b says the board of supervisors is the decision making body if one or more proposed approval actions for the project is pending before the board of supervisors prior to the expiration of the administrative appeal period. now, our issue is it relies on the already unclear first approval action. also, the 30-day appea
, and to the controller's office to adjust the draw. >> chair farrell: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you for the presentation. just two questions. first of all, in terms of the -- what you call the good news, if we potentially get the say 10 million in medi-cal reimbursement that we hadn't necessarily anticipated, what would be the mechanism by which that would be returned to the general fund? >> so basically, if it we have any revenue beyond what's required to get us through year end, at the year end, in the year-end close process, the controller will adjust downward the transfer from the general fund into the hospitals. so each year, the general fund is kind of on the margin that comes in and fills the gap. if we can make that gap smaller, they'll just give us less general fund at the end of the year. and that will fall back into the pot of general fund that's available for appropriation through the budget process. >> supervisor wiener: for any use. >> exactly. >> supervisor wiener: presumably had this 10 million let's say come in last week your supplemental, you would be re
's alternative needs to be considered. i'm also concerned about supervisor wiener's apparent use of horror stories and representative horror stories to make his case. watching this process, i was reminded of lord falkland's wisdom. he said, it is not necessary to make a decision where it is necessary not to make a decision. i encourage you to slow down, don't shut out supervisor kim's input, and let's dot right thing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >>> good afternoon. melinda sargis [speaker not understood], and i'm here to express our strong support for the legislation. >> speak into the microphone. >>> here to express our strong support fort light asian which -- legislation which is going to support the process. [speaker not understood]. first, this legislation is going to benefit smaller family projects in san francisco. there's been a lot of talk of larger e-i-r projects. but ceqa [speaker not understood] are issued more orphan for smaller residential projects than [speaker not understood]. unfortunately under the current system, smaller residential projects are at a disadvanta
wiener's legislation and i wanted to talk specifically how it affects me -- well, i'm going to say i'm an architect, too. specifically, i'm a one-man shop and it affects small projects and small or just small-size projects. and what typically happens is if someone it going to have opposition or a problem, they'll file a dr. you go in front of the planning commission. the planning commission rules one way or the other, justly or unjustly, and that's when the first notice should take place instead of waiting for the last notice, because generally when that happens, if you're doing an addition and you get your approval from the planning commission, you begin the process of hiring a structural engineer, other consult apartments, landscape designers and you can go through a process of six months to do the construction documents. then you go through the process of submitting the building -- [speaker not understood] building department which takes another nine months and you're paying the fees for all that. and it would be just infinitely easier to have the action tied to the first approval
kim will have the opportunity to speak about her legislation and a thank you chair wiener. >> good to be here on a planning code which is our sequa appeal process that has a lot of people involved. despite the sequa process. it's been important to our communities and neighborhoods because it's been a way to minimize the projects in the state of california and also a way to engage in a dialog that keeps us you all accountable. i want to thank supervisor for taking this on its a piece of legislation that so many of our predecessors were not able to come to a consensus on this act. there's - our office decided to put another prospective forward. it's pretty clear we need to pit in a process how we need to appeal negative declarations. we don't have that process yet when the first time sequa was determined to be hardly we need to now put a process in place. the legislation i've introduced with my colleague puts a different prospective forward. i think we all have the goal of putting together a process the developers need a process of the appeals deadline and it will be introduced to th
encouraged by your proposed amendments. supervisor wiener's legislation has been thoroughly vetted. we believe this legislation officer a significant improvement over the statue quo. we believe that gid sequa mrojz will be able to proceed in a timely manner. we've heard from commits about parks and other issues impacting our systems. and we look forward to continue to work with constituents as those projects are selected, designed and implemented. supervisor wiener's proposed sequa reform is in the right direction. >> i'm with the sadly commission. i want to ask you wait until supervisor kim's and wiener's legislation are side by side. and from i don't know if two weeks is enough but we definitely need more time. it's not just about developers it's about what our community is going to look like. this is about supervisor kim and against developers h that has nothing to do with that or community groups are brainwashing our constituents we're actually helping the planning department by educating the constituent they refuse to educate we actually good talk to the community and have meetin
supervisor wiener's proposal. we had a quick look at president chu's remarks we realso support the majority the only one we want to look at is the putting all the deals to the full board. maybe the smaller ones but on the whole he think they're very wise maementsdz we we looked to a vote on the full proposal. i would second the comments by matthew reagan this process has been going on a long time and it's time to have a vote and supervisor kim's proposal has been out there for review and have incorporation of, you know, some of the ideas in there. i especially like the focus on the making sure that the public notice piece is up and running fully i think that's key to all the proposals making sure that online piece is fully functioning and have an opportunity for publication as well. i want to emphasize that the center of cycling we do work with folks with feasibility and for the small community developers having a fair process in place it is key. everyone wants to have their say in having good public notification gives everyone their change to have their say. >> supervisors. we've all been
to first applaud supervisor wiener for taking this on. it's a very controversial and difficult thing to take on. and i also want to applaud you for your restraint in light of some unfortunate comments that were made here today. but i agree that ceqa has some important safeguards, but we have to find ways to streamline the process, make it more fair and more workable. and i think if we do that, that's good for everyone. unless we want san francisco to be a city for only the rich and the advantaged, we have to find ways to make the construction process more affordable. and oftentimes the ceqa process adds a lot to the cost of construction. so, it's to everybody's advantage to try to make it -- to streamline this process. and i'll just leave you with this thought. the proof is in the pudding. everybody here has left san francisco for different reasons. i think we'd all agree in this room we left san francisco in large -- love san francisco for because of victorian architecture. the san francisco everybody loves was built before ceqa was in place. a lot of san francisco that people find
want to commend supervisor wiener and his office because i know he has been working on this for many months and has been pointed out by our former president, this initiative of reforming ceqa has been taken on by several supervisors to no avail yet. i do want to respect that this is the legislation that is before us today, and tomorrow i will have an opportunity to speak more at length on the legislation that we are introducing tomorrow. and i do look forward to all the members that are here today in terms of their comments and feedback on our [speaker not understood] currently supporting supervisor wiener's legislation. just a couple of things. i think that there is general agreement in the room that we need a timeline, a clear appeal window that is generally known to everyone in the public, whether it be the developers, the builders, or members of the community or the neighborhood. and i hope that whatever comes out at the end of this is that we are able to address that very issue. but i think the question is, of course, when does that appeal window toll, when does that begin. and
. >> supervisor yee. >> so i will be seconding that and i really don't want to repeat what supervisor wiener had said and i pretty much agree with his statements about mandating surveillance cameras. i think again if the owner want to be a good neighbor and help out with the community issues that would be great, but on the issue of mandating i am in agreement with supervisor wiener. >> thanks and thank you to ms. avery for the community outreach and the letters of support as well and good luck to the business. colleagues it sounds like we're unanimous with this and can we approve the motion by supervisor wiener without objection? thank you. mr. evans please call item number four. >> item number four is a hearing to consider the issuance of on sale beer license to cesar ascarrunz for cesar's ballroom located at 820 26th street. >> and do we have a representative from mr. ascarrunz here? >> good morning supervisors. >> good morning. >> i believe you know who i am. the beginning of my entertainment was in north beach and i was the only business at that time for 10 years that i used to do benefits
with the conditions. thank you. >> thank you inspector. supervisor wiener. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for the presentation. just first one thing to clarify and i have some questions. it indicates that there were no letters of support recorded with abc and one protest but of course in our package here we have -- i don't see letters again. i see letters in favor including from the neighborhood association, so there are quite a few letters of support in the packet. is that right? >> we did not receive the support. perhaps they didn't support it to abc. >> okay. >> that's what i guess. >> they're in our board packet today which is the packet i think comes from alu. anyway i just went through and there are quite a few positive letters of support including from the hayes valley neighborhood association and supervisor breed and no letters of opposition. so i want to just raise an issue and i actually raise this related to a couple of liquor license this past tuesday at our full board meeting and that has to do with condition 11. condition 11 as you just read requires the establishment
wiener and cpiv's proposed ordinances that would amend chapter 31 to address our local implementation of c-e-q-a. ~ supervisor kim although both were called together on the committee, supervisor wiener's could be called for action because supervisor kim's ordinance would affect the historic preservation commission, and that commission can't hear it until may 15th. as you will recall, both this commission and the hpc supported supervisor wiener's proposal. when you heard it with two requested mod ifications. the supervisor did respond and incorporate both of those suggestions. this week at committee, supervisor campos joined in for the hearing and he stated that c-e-q-a is an important tool to give voice to the public and that this opportunity results in better process. he he said the leverage the city had over cpmc as an example . ~ cited. supervisor wiener said had i does not change state law but only rules for appeals. he stated supervisor kim's ordinance does more and a less clear process. supervisor kim clarified that her ordinance did not intend to allow for multiple appeals of o
days. >> commissioner moore? >> for openers, i like to just state that the road for supervisor's wiener legislation and i vote against it is more or less 99 percent a draft and supervisor kim's legislation and the organization has thoroughly examined those issues which are important for the process of sequel ceqa and what is happening and that is an underlying process and the suggestions by the president of the board adds a level of discussion which we can perhaps make some decisions today but that we can take some arguments here but move it forward and let it be discussed at the next level. i am surprised at some of the comments and push backs the department is giving. it's something that is halfheartedly supporting something but immediately falling it back. i allow for modification but then i don't. i appreciate the department putting us on notice about resources, shortness of resources and the required additional staff. that in on itself is not an argument for or against necessity kind of legislation. that is asking for more resources and shifting resources and asking for more suppor
to eir's and kim's proposal and not appealable to wiener's legislation. we want to exhaust all administrative remedies on a deir or appeal board. there is some significant differences in these and i tend to in these instances side with wiener and chiu. i would like to see the kim legislation forwarded to the board of supervisors with the recommendations of staff and that would be what i would support of and make a motion to that effect. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask the city attorney's advice. since we were at the beginning of the meeting and the debrief on what happened last monday and none of us have seen how this particular new memorandum affects, of course miss rogers summarizes an what is been forwarded for us for approval and disapproval of other portions. how can we possibly prove something than when that what was given to us somewhat modifying of what described in the memo no. 1 isn't really quite holding because it modified. wouldn't it be better to pursue to the board to sort out what the next level of clarity is. i think it happened last monday which
with comments of mr. welch, needs not be changed, not one word of it, supervisor wiener. let me deal with the ugly. i would respectfully suggest, mr. president, that in the new age of conciliatory behavior, that members of the public like mike casey and like the last gentleman who spoke, not be questioned in such an aggressive and offensive way. or alternatively, that individuals -- and let me name names like frank noto who is being paid for his behavior -- be addressed in the same way. thank you for the opportunity to address you. i suggest you continue this item. i hope that you can resolve this in a reasonable amount of time. if i were president of the board, i would say it could be done in two or three weeks. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >>> good evening, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm a contractor/developer. supervisor wiener, i'd like to thank you for bringing this forward. i've been developing buildings here in the city for the last 20 years and this has just been going on and on. the one thing we want to, when we have finished the process, the
that some of the conditions as supervisor wiener hieltsd i highlighted it's used as a tool to revitalize the ear. it's a new trendy think the tremendous amount of support from the receipts and other areas i urge support from my colleagues. >> both of these liquor licenses are in district 6. with the case - i was - i do be given my personal knowledge of the area whether we set up what the criteria would be i think that's an interesting discussion i questioned a lot of the mowed over. the liquor license on howard street i want to continue that item so we can ask the police department why the mandate of the surveillance camera needs to be there. with 34 mason i would support this item as is. thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleagues for their comments i appreciate the comments from supervisor wiener as a gay man myself i know that the cameras can violate people's privacy. and it certainly something i think we need to have a larger discussion about. i think that my office is working with supervisor wiener when those cameras are appropriate and a type of this application. i thi
] supervisor wiener was drafted at ceqa and not discussed. supervisor kim's legislation was drafted in public and now is being continued in public. when notice is given it needs to be pushed out to the public. we do not need to go to the website and have to search for information. we need 60 days on large projects. thank you. >> next speaker. >>> howard wong speaking for san francisco tomorrow. first, we'd like to see supervisor kim's proposed legislation fully considered before adopting any measure before you. the ceqa process, as you know, is a very difficult to understand even for elected officials. but for the average citizen it's almost incomprehensible. the changes that occur in a project are a great multitude of changes. as an architect, i have seen critical path schedules which are very complex. ceqa is often a very small part of the very complex project. we also don't always appreciate that even planning professional are not always accurate. a project can be defined in such a way that easily is misunderstood by the project provided by the public. look at 110 embarcadaro where an hist
and a lot of things, i know there's things that need to be done. but in your legislation, supervisor wiener, it seems like you're approaching this like your proposition e and f where things are thrown in here that does not expand and improve the ceqa process in the city, but rather tightens down timelines, throws in other curves and takes away the chance for a wider exposition of the issues that have to be considered. it's very important that we keep san francisco, first of all, as a place to live. and, you know, if we can make a buck, that's fine, too. thank you. >> sir, can i just clarify something? are you here as an individual or on behalf of unitedhealth care workers? >>> i'm here as an individual. i think i made that clear. >> unitedhealth care workers taken a position on this legislation? >>> no, they have not. >> thank you for that clarification. it was a little unclear. >>> i'm glad i verified that for you. >> next speaker. >>> good evening, supervisors. my name is kieran buckley. i'm a small vendor. [speaker not understood]. and i think you're going the right direction, supervisor
and actually consider two variations of this legislation. it seems to me that supervisor wiener's legislation is -- does an attempt to ram it down our throats. it's an attempt to bypass the kind of discussion that we could have if we had two side by side views on how to improve this kind of permit appeal process. i'm just a regular ordinary citizen and a lot of this is extremely confusing to me. but my impression is that the appeal notification is going to be almost hidden. we don't know exactly when the first approval is. we don't know what organization makes the first approval. and we don't have a chance to appeal the process or the project after that first approval. it just doesn't make sense to me and i think that we deserve to have a full discussion of two alternative ways of reforming this process. i'm not against development. i'm for fair and reasonable development in the city. and i'm also hoping that public participation not only continues in this process, but is made more robust rather than being cut off. thank you very much. >> thank you. ms. hillson, i think we're ready now. >>> c
wiener has made a motion from the categorical exemption. that is seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any additional questions? before we vote, i just want to note, supervisor mar unfortunately was not feeling well and had to go home so i'd like to entertain a motion that we excuse him for the rest of the afternoon. motion by supervisor farrell seconded by supervisor campos, without objection, he will be excused. [gavel] >> with that, if unless there is discussion, let's take a roll call vote on supervisor wiener's motion. >> supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 10 aye. >> the motion is approved and the categorical exemption is affirmed. [gavel] >> thank you to the members of the public. and with that, let us go to the adoption calendar, madam clerk. >> items 19 through 21 are being considered for immediate adoption
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 480 (some duplicates have been removed)